Stage Take Sync

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It richly describes the computed metrics and loop-scoring behavior, but does not explicitly state side effects, prerequisites such as a running stage or existing takes, permissions, or whether the operation is purely read-only.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and remains information-dense without obvious filler. A single long paragraph makes it harder to scan, and some output detail overlaps with the output schema, but each clause generally adds semantic value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, yet it does so richly. Given 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, it remains incomplete for required parameters like scene and takes, and for operational preconditions, so an agent still lacks some information needed to call it confidently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains loops, bars, top, and implies bpm as the song tempo reference, and 'per take'/'per pair' suggests what takes means, but it never explains the required scene parameter or the expected format of takes and bpm.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as measuring how takes keep time with a song and with each other, then lists per-take and per-pair metrics. It is specific about the resource and analysis scope, though it does not use a crisp action verb and only partially differentiates from related take-analysis siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit guidance for one mode: loops=True produces loop windows to pass to stage_take_loop(start=, end=). However, it does not say when to use the main sync analysis instead of related tools such as stage_take_warp, stage_take_view, or stage_takes, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.